Some scientists may speak in ways that sound arrogant. Some even have the false belief that expertise in one speciality makes them able to give expert opinions in matters where they have very little knowledge. Those cases are unfortunate but should not be generalized.
Also the ‘all or nothing’ stance can be the fault of an individual but should not be generalized. Probably the majority of scientists have a somewhat negative attitude towards claims that are strongly black or white, ‘all or nothing’. At least, they would like to question such claims and ask for supporting facts. Therefore, such attitudes and claims are much more common outside than inside the research community.
Science is self-correcting in the way that anyone can present an alternative explanation and that can replace the previous explanations if the alternative explanation can explain the observations better than the previous explanations. Because of this opportunity, scientists expect and demand that any hypotheses or strong claims are presented with some support, be it observations or mathematical calculations. If there are no supporting observations, calculations or facts, the suggestions (hypotheses) are treated as opinions or hypothetical possibilities that may be interesting but do not change the prevailing explanations.
If you criticize the way how scientists explain matters, you should give some supporting observations or other details to clarify and support your differing opinions, otherwise your criticism remains at the level of a vague opinion. It would be arrogant to blame others for your inability or unwillingness to show that your suggestions or criticism are credible.
Ok, I am willing to try playing with your rules. What are your rules?
I also want to add my apology for saying things in a too personal way. You are correct in that our focus should be on the matters, not on the personal flavours.
It wasn’t a false analogy, although I would have changed it a bit. Instead of saying that murders also happened in the past, what the defendant should point out is that people die of natural causes all of the time, so how in the world can we conclude that someone was purposefully killed by a human?
Those are the natural cycles of CO2 which bounce between 175 and 300 ppm. This has been true over the last 3 or 4 glaciation cycles, as recorded in ice sheets in Greenland and Anarctica. Right now we are well over 400 ppm.
We also know how that extra CO2 got there.
When life uses photosynthesis to make sugars out of CO2 they preferrentially use 12C, the lighter isotope of carbon. Since fossil fuels come from life and therefore photosynthesis, fossil fuels are rich in 12C and poor in 13C. What have we seen with this unprecedented amount of CO2 for our time period? A reduction in 13C, exactly what we would expect to see if the increase in CO2 came from burning fossil fuels.
We have also known since the late 1800’s about how much the global temperature would go up if we increased CO2. One such paper by Arrhenius in 1896 did the rough calculations:
From what I have seen, “too big for its boots” means it contradicts your beliefs.
I tried to find your comment where you wrote something about the scientific approach or method being just a philosophy or something - I do not remember exactly. Unfortunately I did not find it.
Edit:
I read again many of your comments in another thread. One thing that I did not understand was your use of the word ‘fact’. That may have caused misunderstandings because your use of the word seemed to differ from the use of others. Especially, writing that something that is a fact in science is not necessarily a fact outside science was confusing.
Basically, I accept the note that ToE is just a theory that can be wrong. I just have not seen a more credible explanation for all the observations that have been made during the last century.
Any statement about the world could be contested. The question is whether there are any grounds for doing so.
Acceptance of common descent relies on the “view” that our sense data are more or less reliable and that the physical world largely behaves in consistent ways. It doesn’t rely on any view about God. To date, it is the only model, scientific or otherwise, for the origin of life’s diversity that explains the data. You claim that evolution is subjective and yet you have so far refused to offer any alternative understanding that explains what we see.
Depends on the data – I’ve seen tree cores that go back 7k years; ice cores can go back 20k years very dependably, and many times that with some fuzziness going on. Interestingly, ice cores correlate nicely with solar cycles, making dating back much farther possible.
I keep praying He will return before the “Big One” earthquake hits the Pacific Northwest (the forecast intensity of the next one is estimated at anywhere from a 7.2 to a 10.1 [the last being harsh enough to crack a crustal plate]).
They haven’t been for over thirty years.
Fumbling, perhaps, but the odds that the climate model developed where I attended university over thirty years ago got as much right about our regional climate due to “guessing” are worse than for winning the PowerBall lottery.
I really did not want to go down the same old roads.
The concepts of “random”, and “irreducibility” to name but two.
Everything point s to a direction, or development. But there is no reason for anything to develop philosophically. .There is no reason for the right adaption to appear at the right time, or a sequential development of a feature such as wings or even a heart. Even Ocham suggested that the simplest solution is probably the best. Human physiology is anything but simple.
Virtually every argument I have eve put forward on this forum has been shouted down by scientists intent on protecting their precious theory. It is anything but neutral or dispassionate. You understand why I am reluctant to specify anything.
Not in the short term. We did calculations for that in botany, glaciology, and astronomy courses when I attended university. In math terms, the slope of the lines for natural changes are on the order of 0.0001, while those for human meddling approach (or exceed) 0.5.
Bingo.
No – if you want to “play” science, you must play in reality’s playground with reality’s rules.
Your objection is like a player new to soccer griping that he can’t take the ball and run to the goal the way he could do it in American football: if you play a given game, you have to play by its rules.
I didn’t read it as personal, just as the all-too-common of the second person where third person is meant.
Philosophy was one argument against Galileo and Copernicus. Philosophy lost.
If anyone can look at that chart and not be scared they need therapy.
And that is the reason Ii do not wish to argue them. The analogy was correct for the meaning i used it for. hijacking it to mean something different is not helpful… The idea of an analogy is to understand what was originally meant, All I ever hear is a literal understanding of the imagery that misses the point.
Richard
PS you analogy in this post also fails, but it is pointless to explain why without understanding how an analogy works (or doesn’t) .
Suffice it to say, your playground is the empirical scientific viewpoint. Scientists are either unwilling or unable to see past it or to challenge it. As such there is no other “playground” available.
years late i know, but to me its worth bringing up i think…
Liam I largely agree i think with everything you have written above. I like it when i find common ground with BioLogos individuals…its comforting and i genuinely smile on the inside when that happens.
May i just highlight, I am not sure if I fall into the reformed category…I tend to see that as a Baptist thing. My Christian upbringing didn’t expose me to that notion in the manner in which i think it’s being used these days
My notion of reformed is what Martin Luthers’ version of it portrayed than what i perceive is the modern Baptist version (which interestingly enough, i struggle to actually define as one looking in from the outside of that organisation/denomination).
I think i see reformed Baptists as being individuals who argue with the fundamentalist Baptist rednecks…both groups still vote republican under Trumps leadership for what reason i cannot really understand?
i see Trump as a man who may have some good ideas, but generally he just wants to burn the hell out of the American political system… “for kicks”. I’m rooting for that man as I’m mystified as to why people would vote for his kind of craziness. I cannot for the life of me make sense of how or why the human condition willingly resorts to that method of moving forward. Its like the US gun lobby claim that i think appears to believe that the best way to reduce gun crime is to place firearms in the hands of everyone so they can defend themselves…against people with guns
Perhaps you could fix my dilemma by explaining which version of “reformed” you are referring too (Martin Luthers or the modern Baptist version)?
